-
by sayum
21 December 2025 12:45 PM
“Conviction Cannot Be Based on Unreliable Evidence and Hostile Witnesses” - Calcutta High Court reversed the conviction of a man accused under Sections 376 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court found that the prosecution failed entirely to prove the offence, as the victim herself denied any rape, her parents disowned their own statements, and the medical and forensic evidence was inconclusive.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das emphatically held: “No unimpeachable evidence can be found against the appellant to pass an order of conviction even under Section 354 IPC.”
“Prosecution's Own Witnesses Collapsed—Victim Failed to Identify Accused, Parents Turned Hostile”
The incident, alleged to have occurred on March 30, 2009, involved accusations of rape against Rakhal Ghosh, then a 45-year-old man, on a minor girl. However, the trial court’s conviction under Section 354 IPC was later challenged as being unsupported by reliable testimony. The High Court found that the father of the victim, who had lodged the complaint, made a complete U-turn in court:
“The de facto complainant/PW-4 made a total departure from what he put in the written complaint. He was declared hostile.”
Likewise, the mother of the victim (PW-5) also denied any knowledge of the incident: “She stated that she did not lodge any case and has no knowledge about any incident involving her daughter and the accused.”
The victim herself, examined as PW-6, gave no incriminating evidence: “She deposed that the appellant just touched her body. She failed to identify him and admitted to signing the Section 164 CrPC statement under police instruction.”
“Statement Under Section 164 CrPC Cannot Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration”
The High Court clarified the limited evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC when the victim denies it in court:
“Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction when not corroborated in court.”
Here, the victim retracted her 164 statement, claiming she was coerced into it, thereby demolishing the foundation of the prosecution's case.
“Medical Report Found No Sign of Sexual Assault—Delay in Examination Weakens the Case”
The victim’s medical examination occurred 16 days after the alleged incident, and the doctor found no external injuries, no signs of intercourse, and no foreign material. The High Court noted:
“An irregular vertical injury of the hymen was found, but that alone is not enough to prove rape or even molestation.”
This finding significantly weakened the prosecution case in light of retracted testimonies.
“FIR Found Unreliable—Scribe Not Examined and Father Disowned It”
The FIR, which formed the basis of the case, also collapsed under scrutiny. The complainant denied filing or dictating it, and the person who allegedly wrote it was never brought to court.
“Even the FIR was not proved in accordance with law. The scribe of the complaint was not examined, and the complainant denied its authorship.”
“Principle of Criminal Jurisprudence Requires Proof Beyond Doubt, Which Is Totally Absent Here”
Reiterating the standard of criminal proof, the Court stated: “Where the evidence is riddled with contradictions, retractions and hostility, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt.”
“This is not a case where even Section 354 IPC could be sustained—there is no evidence of use of criminal force or intent to outrage modesty.”
Setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the Calcutta High Court held that the case lacked any legal foundation to convict:
“The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The benefit of doubt must go to the accused.”
The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to be discharged from bail obligations in six months in accordance with Section 481 of the BNSS.
Date of Decision: May 5, 2025
